2024-09-12
Older models emphasizing strain, societal breakdown, grievance give way to newer models that emphasize:
The role of organization, structure, and resources in explaining contentious behavior
The social and political context for collective action, over studying “crowds” on their own
Continuity between conventional state-approved political behavior and non-conventional forms.
The importance of rationality over pathologies (even for extreme behaviors like genocide)
Two closely related perspectives termed Resource Mobilization Theory and the Political Process Model exemplify this shift.
Why do we see a surge in civil rights activism in the 1960s?
Why do we see a surge in civil rights activism in the 1960s?
“…there is always enough discontent in any society to supply the grass-roots support for a movement” - Turner and Killian (1972)
If we take grievances as a given, what else impedes groups from forming protest movements? You can’t explain variation by pointing to something that is static!
Civil rights are a collective benefit, but the costs of protests are borne by individuals.
\[ U = PB - C \]
\(U\) is the expected benefit of protesting
\(PB\) is the (B)enefit times the (P)robability that the benefit depends on your participation
\(C\) is the cost or risk associated with protesting.
If you can enjoy this benefit without paying the costs, then not participating is always preferable to participating. So collective benefits probably can’t explain why anyone participates, even for really severe grievances!
Groups need:
A pool of resources (donations, external political pressure, information) that can offset the costs of action.
Social Movement Organizations (SMOs) that can channel resources toward effective actions
The NRA is an SMO in the gun-rights movement. How do they offset the costs of participation?

Selective material incentives can help offset the costs of support
The Michigian Liberty Militia is also an SMO in the (broadly defined) gun rights movement. How do they offset the costs of collective action?
Non-material “solidary” benefits might include camaraderie or thrilling experiences or the warm fuzzy feeling of making a difference.
Fewer resources = more solidary benefits, but also a very different kind of supporter. Requires dedication and “strong ties”
Some marketplaces are saturated: you can’t compete directly with the NRA, so you might need to offer a different reward entirely.
What are the costs/benefits associated with gaining the support of conscience constituents, elite donors, or isolated members?
What are the costs/benefits associated with gaining the support of highly motivated activists for riskier activism?
Can seeking resources sometimes cause movements to undermine or alter their goals? How do contemporary movements like BLM attempt to address these costs/benefits?
Closely related to resource mobilization theory, but difference emphasis
Emphasizes the role of the political system itself in explaining the emergence of protest, particularly the political opportunity structure
Central concerns/Concepts
The contentious repertoire
The political opportunity structure
Mobilizing structures
Cycles and waves
Framing processes
…collective action involves not only what people know how to do, but also what those on the receiving end would expect and understand - Eitan Y. Alimi
Activists have a menu of options for creating pressure. Extreme actions (terrorism and revolution) sit along a continuum with more “normal” forms like voting or lobbying.
The repertoire is dependent on conditions, and items leave and enter over time, or they take on new meanings, or shift from being seen as radical to being viewed as routine
British Repertoire prior to 19th century
Grain seizures/riots
Rough music
Forced illumination
British Repertoire my the mid 19th century
Protests and social movements
Boycotts
Party formation
“consistent – but not necessarily formal or permanent – dimensions of the political struggle that encourage people to engage in contentious politics” - Sidney Tarrow
Examples:
Accessible institutions
Elite support or opposition
State ability/will to use repression
State capacity to implement new policies
Shared beliefs or “cognitive liberation” that can politicize grievances
Opportunity structures and repertoires interact to shape contention.
Question: Since protest is just one tool in the toolbox, what factors might drive actors to use it?
What are the alternatives?
Why choose it over other options?
How/when might protest work?
Model 1: Protest is an expression of frustration with a closed system
Model 2: Protest occurs when structures are somewhat open, but still too closed for “insider” tactics to be available.
What are some empirical implications of one model vs the other?
Outcome: level of black protest activity in 43 US cities in 1968
Measures:
DV: protest activity (collected from newspaper data)
IV: openness of the opportunity structure as measured by:
Mayoral + (as opposed to city manager)
Ward system + (as opposed to at-large)
Partisan Elections + (as opposed to non-partisan)